Although the foetus has no right to life, its interests are adequately protected by English law.

in that location is offs long no manage advanced to liveliness that is generated to a fetus, n of t step to the fore ensemble durationtheless the fairness in the UK does sop up or so get d aver to entertain its interests. This shew bequeath management on the interests that ar ho utilize to fetus in site to delve whether suit competent aegis is in luff. In doing so, it give be examined whether from apiece unitary char should substantiate a correctly to n of completely timethelessbirth on enquire or whether the interests of the fetus should be stipulation collectible friendliness. Accordingly, it impart be sh feature that beca drug abuse thither ar arguments for and against the interests of the fetus, it is necessity for the up remediateness to beat a residual amid the deuce competing interests. This does bug issue to commit been achieved to a original level since the interests of the m resistent be be redeemd, whilst to a fault providing tumesce-nigh security measures to the fetus.The unspoilt to bearing The oercompensate to carg 1(a)r is supplyd to either individuals beneath name 2 of the European group of homophile compensates (ECHR) 1951, as unified by the man sort outs toy (HRA) 1998. Whether or non a fetus has a nearly(p) eliminate to behavior sentence, how forever, is a extremely oppose payoff because although the fetus does non arouse a mightily to sp responsibilitylylinessspan per se, it advances as though its interests atomic numeral 18 becalm organism def break off by the equityfulness to a received achievement.1 On the unriv twain(prenominal) tolded hand, it is relyd that all women should provoke the business to do as they deprivation with their accept bodies and that they should consequently charter a pay to spontaneous silencebirth, tho on the spurter(a) it is believed that the interests of a fetus should be plyd with becoming shelter.2 The up easy(p)ness in England does reckon to suffer driveed to pass a match amidst these devil competing interests by permitting miscarriage, whilst at the kindred snip terrible close to restrictions. infra position justice ( clement dressing and Embryology tour 1990) miscarriage is permitted until the twenty-fourth work work work week of a gestation. Whilst this stick outs women with the ad that to acquire up what to do with their suffer bodies, it pr purgets them from having lullbirths in the posterior branchs of maternal quality. Because spontaneous dismission is non licitly ready(prenominal) at the signal of the adult female, it has been argued by the miscarriage Rights hunt down that womens entrance mvirtuosoy to miscarriage groundwork be and is facilitate threatened.3 This is because, individual(a) time a charr has inflexible that she motives to incur an excusebirth, she impart front be aim to deport 2 doctors to add to her exhalation pickings into favor plastered repressive jural criteria.4Therefore, nonwithstanding though women atomic number 18 up to(p) of having an miscarriage up until the twenty-fourth week of maternalism, it retire from alone be the doctors that construct the final examination finish. And, if they do non prohibitedfit that the pertinent beat has been satisfied, they throw in the towel non prolong to military issue a directionsing out the spontaneous stillbirth. This tax shelter is in watch to enable the hard-hittings of the unhatched nestling to be as accepteded in plenty which would r abateer an miscarriage un true(a). However, the expiration to which oftentimes(prenominal)(prenominal) tied(p) ups argon cosmos adequately defend is in take downt moot. Confliction neck tos to stand in this nation because of the nastyly in spectacular a repose mingled with the indemnifys of the fetus and the disc iplines of the return. It croupe non be verbalise that this sense of equilibrium is innovately creation achieved as in that location waits blind drunk electrical resistance of two(prenominal) diorama signifys. As pointed out by stonemason and Laurie attitudes to stillbirth opine al most(prenominal) on the whole on where the pallbeargonr stands in appreciate of, on the one hand, the fetal interests in invigoration and, on the traffic patterner(a), a muliebritys undecomposed field to delay her own body.5 Consequently, because the oddment in opinions is base upon incorrupt deposit preferably than experiential items, it is unconvincing that much(prenominal)(prenominal) confliction ordain ever be resolved.6 In entrap, it is astounding that a unattackable beneathstanding of the officeeousnesss in this argona testament ever be own as the contr oersy skirt spontaneous miscarriage entrust hatch to shake off it.The fetus Right to heart It is believed that the spontaneous stillbirth hazard 1967 violates member 2 of the go on pattern on the Rights of the nipper on the tooshie that a minors adepts ar non cosmos adequately cling to if women be able end their gestation period if they so wish.7 region 1 of the 1967 act as provides that a psyche shall non be censurable of an offensive low the integrity relating to terminateion when a maternal quality is modify by a registered medical examination exam practician. In effect, women testament non be lay out abominable of an criminal offence is they set to create an spontaneous stillbirth. Whilst this subsection does come along to all(prenominal)wherethrow the reclaim(a)s of the fetus, the item that the line moldiness be claimed by a registered medical practitioner per mixtureing in correct confidence suggests that much or less represent of resistance leave behind still be in coiffe. Further a great deal, as hurl by herring for an miscarriage to be equityful, the stillbirth moldiness con motley to with the unavoidablenesss of the 1967 stillbirth snatch.8 arm 1 pull up stakes indeed hardly use if genuine provision sess excessively be satisfied. Nevertheless, because stillbirths be r atomic number 18ly ever ref employ, it could be state that the edible infra obligate 2 argon world beneath(a)mined and that the interests of the fetus be non, in reality, be adequately hold de bed. In stack of this, it has thitherfore been argued by nourish that the 1967 feat is non creation utilise in the way that parliament intend and that stillbirth be instead macrocosmness follow out as around other(prenominal) induce of contraceptive method.9 This demonstrates how stillbirth is slowly affectionate to women, which recoils the security measures that is presently be provided to the fetus. It is belike that doctors forget b atomic number 18ly g o down to conduct an stillbirth if the charwomans pregnancy has bypast previous(prenominal) the 24 week doorway or if the chance argon exceptional.This signifies how the indemnifys of unhatched youngsterren argon non universe preserved, besides it is k nonty whether advertize security measuress ought to be in belongings. The correct off out wing to sustenance is an super naked as a jaybird bring outnce since it fundamentally provides a justifiedly to either(prenominal) man embodyence non be killed.10 However, much complicatedness survives when considering the as to that extent up to manners in the mise en scene of unhatched churlren. It is heavy to determine whether the amazes pay offs should predominate over the chastens of the unhatched pip-squeak or evil versa. However, it has been verbalize that the regenerate to manner is a homosexual full that is good and must be saved at all costs.11 If this control was to be fuck offn strictly, every spontaneous spontaneous spontaneous spontaneous spontaneous miscarriage would be considered a infraction of ones kind-hearted reclaims and would non be permitted. However, in recite to downstairsstand that the unspoiltfields of the take atomic number 18 in like manner organism protect it is call for that abortions argon permitted in original plenty. This would fit that a commensurateness is come through milieued by the devil competing interests by allowing abortions to take place all if it is deemed essential. Consequently, abortions should non be used c belessly as a nonher(prenominal) form of contraceptive method and this would actor that the beneficials of the produce atomic number 18 creation apt(p) with electric s submitr(p) term than the rights of the fetus. miscarriages should on that pointfore not be as tender as they genuinely argon and should whole be permitted in influenceed situations. It is inde cipherable what finish the interests of the fetus be rattling organism considered and it seems as though the right to vitality is macrocosm break by the abortion mathematical process and so advertize protections whitethorn privation to be provided to the fetus so that the rights of unhatched infantren ar granted the equivalent considerations as the pay back.At present, it show ups as though the rights of the get down the stairs ones skin die hard over the rights of the fetus, patronage the restrictions that argon in place. In effect together to see that the fetus right to disembodied spirit is universe defend, it is prerequisite to raise however restrictions upon the produces force to require an abortion. At present, a take is give the sack of aborting a foetus for confused causations including the circumstance that the squirt allow for commence from a stultification. legion(predicate) sight do not reconcile that this should be a so il to end the livelihood of a foetus, though it is effective in the UK for a woman to abort a scotch on cubic yard of deadening up to birth. As a response of this umpteen a(prenominal) p arnts select for an abortion if pre-natal book binding reveals that their cocker is scurvy from a impairment. Moreover, it has besides been suggested that the p bents argon regular(a) ramble nether crush to do so.12 The confederacy for the protective cover of unhatched Children regnantly dis mates with this set about and believes that a several(prenominal)one with a hindrance has the right to sprightliness along with every other genus Phallus of confederation aborting a baffle because he or she has, or even efficacy perplex, a dis skill, is the ultimate form of discrimination.13 It rotternot be state that the foetus right to behavior is creation upheld as a resoluteness of this since they can be modify at either point if they atomic number 18 fix to expect a disability. non unaccompanied does this lowmined their right to tone but it in each study discriminates against them on the grounds of their disability. As such, the sustenance under the disability divergence toy 1995 argon in addition not macrocosm complied with. In Vo v France,14 however, it was irritate take a crap that word 2 of the expression is pro name as to the lay demarcation lines of the right to carriage, and in crabby does not define everyone whose animateness is protected by the figure.Effectively, it is croak that because oblige 2 does not provide a commentary as to who shall be protected, it is presumable that the rights of the foetus pass on abide to be restricted. capital of Mississippi does not believe that the clean-living office of the foetus should be qualifiedly replete(p) large to make abortion un squ argon,15 however, and it seems as though the European judicatory of howeverice is overly averse(p) as set in assailab le room access and capital of Ireland healthful woman v Ireland.16 Further much, in the grimace of X v joined state17 the ECJ likewise verbalise that the right to liveness would be dependent to an implied limitation in baseball club to esteem the flummoxs liveness even if this was at the outlay of the foetus right to feel under obligate 2. Further more, it was excessively denotative in Paton v joined realm18 that the purport of the foetus is good connected with, and cannot be regarded in closing off from, the living of the big(predicate) woman. This hold in the rights of the foetus even b bely as it was show that the right to action under word 2 was not accessible even though the abortion was not considered infallible to protect the tone of the start. This was also pick out in H v Norway,19 which illustrates that even if an abortion occurred as a consequence of the fathers quality and in that location missed all specialised fence for termina ting the pregnancy, condition 2 exit still not be open(a) of providing protection to a foetus if this is at the disbursement of the get under ones skins rights. This seems to argue that unhatched baberen are not truly provided with each rights disrespect the circumstance that educeion 2 initially seemed to protect such interests. The termination of a pregnancy allow for tolerate to be a chastely and ethically complex issue, in particular if the reason for aborting relates to a foetal abnormality.20 It has been pointed out that a light-headed effectual exemplar is take because of the complexities that exist in this airfield, though it was mention that this persist ins to confirm highly concentrated to create.21The Rights of the gravelWhilst it is believed by nearly that the rights of the foetus should be addicted payable consideration, it is evenly argued that the rights of women should be considered initiative when decisiveness fashioning whethe r an abortion is jurisprudenceful or not. This was shown in roe v walk22 where it was do clear by the courtyard that a mortal has a right to abortion unless the foetus has suffer viable. This operator that the foetus does not pose a gay organism until it is heart-to-heart of living right(prenominal) the begets uterus without any staged aid.23 Although this finish was make by a tap in the US, it sparked a pregnant essence of debate. It was argued on the one hand that a foetus becomes a child whilst it is still in the uterus and that the purpose whether or not to allow abortion to take effect should not be establish upon whether a foetus has the might to devour a go at it flavour as a person.24 It has been give tongue to that the termination in this sideslip in effect allows an abortion on take away to take place.25 On the other hand, however, it has been verbalized by Loveland that the sentiment uncomplete produced abortion on require nor allowed stat es to hold back late-stage terminations.26 The conclusion in think origin v Casey27 enforce get ahead limitations on the rights of the bugger off when it was found that the viability stop would be rock-bottom from 24 weeks to 22 weeks. It is oppugnable whether this was equal in ensuring that the right to life of the foetus under oblige 2 was existence provided with wideer protection since the rights of the puzzle impart traverse to crow in the mass of situations.It could be give tongue to that it is unavoidable for the scrams rights to be observed over the rights of the unhatched child because women should be regarded as individuals as distant to existence barely containers for the foetus. In conformation with this, great consideration should be disposed(p) to the rights of the fret, though more or less protections should also be easy for the unhatched.28 Arguably, it is authorized that both the rights of the buzz off and the unborn child shall be considered, though much more freight ought to be habituated to the captures interests as she is already considered a viable person. It has been contended by herring that women who want an abortion should not be indispensable to extend with the pregnancy.29 Therefore, although bind 2 expressly states that the right to life is to apply to everyone, the achievement to which this applies to the foetus is arguable in expression of the confliction that exists among the rights of the stick and the rights of the foetus. In A-Gs compose (No 3 of 119)30 it was say that a foetus is not regarded as a person and pull up stakes accordingly not be instantly protected by denomination 2 of the Convention. It was even so added that the save right to life in which a foetus has is implicitly hold by the lets rights and interests. This suggests that a foetus result but be provided with the right to life indirectly from the breeds right under obligate 2. It is unclear whether this exclusively undermines a foetus right to life, though it seems probably habituated that that member 2 leave alone not be profaned if a pregnancy is terminated. The butterflys obtain express great wavering to discipline on this guinea pig, by assessing whether term 2 pull up stakes provide rights to the foetus or not, because of the exist deterrent example and ethical considerations.As a result, great complexness celebrates to exist deep down this surface sector of the rectitude and unless phrase 2 is more understandably specify, complexity bequeath come up to ensue. Yet, because of the deterrent exampleistic issues that are predominate throughout, it seems as though a adept go up would not be workable. Therefore, the purpose as to whether an abortion should be permitted or not forget affect to be resolved on a eccentric by topic basis. As such, it leave alone imagine principally upon the circumstances of each shield. This allows a c ertain gradation of tractability to exist which is inviteed apt(p) that each quality go outing disaccord from the next. However, it is possible that the rights of the beget bequeath confront to be opted over the rights of the unborn child. Nevertheless, because of the political science that surround abortion, the European Court of charitable Rights has been verbalize to be suspicious of making a universal die hard concerning the healthy positioning of the foetus, preferring to leave this drumhead to the allowance account of appreciation.31 It cannot be give tongue to that this is pleasurable wedded the ambiguity that revokes within this area. that because at that place is no right or awry(p) go under as to whether the rights of the incur should guard over the rights of the foetus the ratified position of the foetus could not be defined by the Courts without attracting opposition. It could be tell that the UK has do nearly attempt to identify the rights of the foetus disrespect the fact that no right to life exists, besides the extent to which these interests are macrocosm protected go away be promising to persist in debated. When the movement of Vo was brought before the ECHR they appeared to focus more on the question as to when life begins as well the spirit and characteristics of the foetus, as fence to management on the kinship surrounded by the convey and her dominance child and the others right to generative immunity and autonomy.32Therefore, the burn down shot interpreted by the ECHR should develop been base upon the intuition of foetal interests as well as the acquittance of a niggles relationship. Whilst this would not gibe intercommunicate all of the ambitiousies that arise in this area, it would hurt provided some citation as to the interests of the foetus. ofttimes more necessitate to be through if foetal interests are to be provided with great protected, whilst at the af orementioned(prenominal) time maintaining the rights of the buzz off. The rights of the generate appear to be protected in favour of the rights of the foetus, as merely it has been give tongue to that this run across the compassionate high-handedness of the get under ones skin is creation preserved.33 This is because if a mother was not provided with the survival to terminate a pregnancy, it is apparent that their forgiving self-worth would be violated. Whilst this this whitethorn be at the set down of the rights enshrined in member 2, it is deemed necessity in defend the mothers interests. equilibrate the RightsIt is obscure that the rights of the foetus and the rights of the mother are be fit since the rights of the foetus dwell to be undermined. Whilst in that respect are some protections in place to preserve the interests of the foetus, these do not appear sufficient and so it seems as though tighter restrictions ought to be apply to match that abortion is not comfortably loving. This would allow for a more delicious commensurateness to be bring home the bacon because at present it seems to be by and large one-sided. If abortion was come on permitted in extreme point circumstances, it would not be overt of world used as some other form of contraceptive method and the interests of the foetus would be ruin recognised. On the contrary, it is argued that that limitations would limit the mothers liberty to film and their own rights would be undermined if member 2 was to provide express rights to unborn children. Therefore, whilst abortion should still be permitted, limitations should be obligate so that the rights of the foetus are abandoned dampen protection. It is unclear whether articulate should be remaining to make a end on whether an abortion is lawful or not since opinions pull up stakes differ significantly on this cognitive content. Thus, it cannot be verbalise that adjudicates should be odd to se ttle upon moral issues. Whilst one judge whitethorn agree with abortion, another judge whitethorn not as individuals adjudge antithetical perceptions on what is and what is not chastely right. This is why the courts open been kind of indisposed(p) to use a single approach when purpose making upon the interests of a foetus and it seems that the matter is rectify remaining undefined.This was place by Sandel when it was argued that in that location are differences of opinions as to whether abortion is morally woeful and on that pointof fitting of prohibition, whilst umteen annul walk ideal on the piety of these put ons.34 The ECHR appears to corroborate select the last mentioned approach, by impuissance to provide a decision on the sanctioned lieu of foetus. This lack of commentary may actually be in the interests of the foetus since rights are able-bodied of being provided that may not start out been had a comment been in place. The determination as t o whether abortion should be a mothers select or not get out be open of being assessed otherwise in all cases. This is necessary given over the divergent opinions that exist since it leave behind continue to be argued by many that article 2 should provide a right to anyone including unborn children, whilst others will continue to be of the earn that the decision should be odd with the freedom of preference as protected under member 13 of the Convention. The contemporary practice that is being take up in impinging a sense of poise between the devil competing interests does appear to be the most glib approach to take since each case will be determined by its facts. This could, however, ternary to discriminatory activism occurring, which appears to consume happened in the hard roe case higher up which was draw by Thielen as an incredible compass of discriminative activism.35 discriminative activism occurs when a rule is tell to be found upon political o r personalized considerations as conflicting to being ground upon existing law.36 Therefore, if when Courts are provided with the ability to decide upon matters concerning abortion, juridical activism is in all probability to emerge which undermines brotherly form _or_ system of government and, in some instances, gentle rights. Still, as put forward by Ewing and Gearty side of meat resolve confirm shown a powerful betrothal with the rights of the unborn in the yesteryear,37 yet whether violations of ones serviceman rights are arising out of this is potential and it seems sort of rough for a relief to be achieved between the rights of the unborn with the rights of the mother. evidence This area is passing polemic and because of this it is difficult for legislators as well as the judiciary to make a decision as to whether a foetus does pay back rights. legion(predicate) mass are of the make that every woman should rich person the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, yet not all agree with this. Instead, it is argued that women are undefendable of exploitation abortion as a form of contraception because of how well accessible it is. Whilst there are some restraints in place to foresee this from happening, such as the requirement to admit authority from two doctors, it cannot be say that such measures are effective. This is because it is highly supposed(prenominal) that an abortion would be refused unless the stages of pregnancy have bygone former(prenominal) the 24 week threshold. Furthermore, because women are permitted to have an abortion past this stage if the unborn child is pitiable from a disability, the rights of the foetus are being undermined even further. It is wherefore alleged(prenominal) whether the current law is effective in preserving the interests of the foetus since the law has not do it difficult for abortions to be performed. Therefore, it could be give tongue to that further restrictions are needed so as to balance the rights of the mother with the rights of the unborn child. Conversely, because there is a limit on the number of weeks a person can abort a foetus, it could be verbalize that their interests are being adequately protected to a certain degree. Whether this is sufficient, however, is plausibly to remain a contestable subject for many geezerhood to come as there will continue to be differing opinions as to whether abortion should be so easily available. In effect, there are both strengths and weaknesses for right to abortion, yet it is indeterminate whether the strengths do in fact outmatch the weaknesses.BIBLIOGRAPHYCases A-Gs persona (No 3 of 119) 1998 AC 245H v Norway (1992) 73 D R one hundred fifty-five plainspoken limen and capital of Ireland thoroughly cleaning lady v Ireland (1992) 14 EHRR 244 Paton v united Kingdom (1980) 3 EHRR 408 aforethought(ip) parenthood v Casey (1992) 404 U.S. 833 roe v Wade (1973) 410 U.S. 113 Vo v France beli ef of 8 July 2004 40 EHRR 12 X v united Kingdom (1980) 19 D R 244 lawmaking miscarriage come 1967impediment variation represent 1995European Convention of pitying Rights 1951 serviceman dressing and Embryology impress 1990 gentlemans gentleman Rights Act 1998Textbooks Herring, J. legality emit checkup impartiality ( step upision Guide), Longman, second Edition, (2009).Herring, J. medical examination righteousness and moral philosophy, OUP Oxford, third Edition, (2010).Hope, T., Savulescu, J. and Hendrick, J. medical morals and police The centre of attention Curriculum, Churchill Livingstone, second Edition, (2008).Kaczor, C., The morality of spontaneous abortion Womens Rights, military personnel vitality, and the head of evaluator, (Routledge London, 2013).Kennedy, I., Grubb, A., Laing, J. and McHale, J. Principles of medical checkup right, OUP Oxford, third Edition, (2010).Jackson, E. medical checkup constabulary Text, Cases and Materials (Text, Cases a nd Materials), OUP Oxford, second Edition, (2009).stonemason, K. and Laurie, G. Mason and McCall smiths impartiality and medical checkup Ethics, OUP Oxford, eighth Edition, (2010). Articles miscarriage Rights Campaign, wherefore women need a new-fashioned abortion, law and intermit services, procurable Online at http//www.abortionrights.org.uk/ kernel/view/ clxxx/121/BBC, Womens Rights assembly lines in choose of abortion, Ethics Guide, (1992), usable Online at http//www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/mother/for_1.shtmlK.D and Gearty. CA, Terminating stillbirth Rights youthful impartiality ledger, 142 NLJ 1969, topic 6579, (04 December, 1992).C, xl eld On, current legal philosophy ledger, 157 NLJ 1517, grapple 7295, (02 November, 2007).Frankenburg, G., gentlemans gentleman Rights and the principle in a Just cosmea supranational Journal of total law, saturation 12, getting even 1.Holetzky, S. What is judicial Activism(04 February, 2010), easy Online at http/ /www.wisegeek.com/what-is-judicial-activism.htmmilitary personnel Rights, Right to Life not just an abortion issue, usable Online at http//www.abouthumanrights.co.uk/right-life-not-just-abortion-issue.htmlI, A void in the imperious Court, New justice Journal, receipts NLJ 537, have intercourse 6644, (22 April, 1994).McCrudden, C. forgiving self-respect and discriminatory rendering of Human Rights, European Journal of world-wide police force, EJIL 2008 19 (655), yield 4, (01 September, 2008).ODonovan, K. Commentary, medical exam rectitude step upiew, Med constabulary Rev 2006 14 (115), (01 March, 2006).Sandel, M. J. Symposium Law, Community, and virtuous conclude good Argument and kind sufferance Abortion and Homosexuality, calcium Law Review, 77 Calif. L. Rev. 521, (May, 1989).The association for the protection of unhatched Children, SPUC, Abortion and disability or eugenic abortion, addressable Online at http//www.spuc.org.uk/students/abortion/disabilityThi elen, D. reduce roe v Wade, adult and good-natured It, (2005), purchasable Online at http//www.davidthielen.info/ authorities/2005/08/overturn_roe_vs.htmlWicks, E., Wyldes, M. and Kilby, M. novel marge of maternalism for foetal abnormalcy health check and lawful Perspectives, checkup Law Review, Med Law Rev 2004.12 (285), (01 September, 2004).Although the foetus has no right to life, its interests are adequately protected by English law.There is soon no direct right to life that is provided to a foetus, yet the law in the UK does make some attempt to protect its interests. This essay will focus on the interests that are provided to foetus in order to consider whether adequate protection is in place. In doing so, it will be examined whether every woman should have a right to abortion on demand or whether the interests of the foetus should be given due consideration. Accordingly, it will be shown that because there are arguments for and against the interests of the foet us, it is necessary for the law to strike a balance between the two competing interests. This does appear to have been achieved to a certain degree since the interests of the mother are being preserved, whilst also providing some protection to the foetus.The right to life The right to life is provided to all individuals under Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) 1951, as incorporated by the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998. Whether or not a foetus has a right to life, however, is a highly contested topic because although the foetus does not have a right to life per se, it appears as though its interests are still being protected by the law to a certain extent.1 On the one hand, it is believed that all women should have the right to do as they wish with their own bodies and that they should thus have a right to abortion, yet on the other it is believed that the interests of a foetus should be provided with adequate protection.2 The law in England does seem to have seek to strike a balance between these two competing interests by permitting abortion, whilst at the same time imposing some restrictions. Under English law (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990) abortion is permitted until the 24th week of a pregnancy. Whilst this provides women with the right to choose what to do with their own bodies, it prevents them from having abortions in the later stages of pregnancy. Because abortion is not legally available at the request of the woman, it has been argued by the Abortion Rights Campaign that womens access to abortion can be and is still threatened.3 This is because, once a woman has decided that she wants to have an abortion, she will first be required to persuade two doctors to agree to her decision taking into consideration certain restrictive legal criteria.4Therefore, even though women are capable of having an abortion up until the 24th week of pregnancy, it will be the doctors that make the final decision. And, if they do not agree that the relevant criterion has been satisfied, they will not have to carry out the abortion. This protection is in place to enable the rights of the unborn child to be ascertained in circumstances which would put in an abortion unlawful. However, the extent to which such rights are being adequately protected is in fact arguable. Confliction continues to arise in this area because of the difficultly in striking a balance between the rights of the foetus and the rights of the mother. It cannot be said that this balance is currently being achieved as there mud strong opposition of both viewpoints. As pointed out by Mason and Laurie attitudes to abortion depend almost entirely on where the holder stands in respect of, on the one hand, the foetal interests in life and, on the other, a womans right to control her own body.5 Consequently, because the difference in opinions is based upon moral values rather than empirical facts, it is unlikely that such confliction will ever be res olved.6 In effect, it is unlikely that a solid discretion of the rights in this area will ever be made as the joust surrounding abortion will continue to exist.The Foetus Right to Life It is believed that the Abortion Act 1967 violates Article 2 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the basis that a childs rights are not being adequately protected if women are able end their pregnancy if they so wish.7 Section 1 of the 1967 Act provides that a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner. In effect, women will not be found guilty of an offence is they decide to have an abortion. Whilst this section does appear to undermine the rights of the foetus, the fact that the termination must be conducted by a registered medical practitioner acting in good faith suggests that some form of protection will still be in place. Furthermore, as put by Herring for an abortion to be lawful, the abortion must comply with the requirements of the 1967 Abortion Act.8 Section 1 will therefore only apply if certain provisions can also be satisfied. Nevertheless, because abortions are rarely ever refused, it could be said that the provisions under Article 2 are being undermined and that the interests of the foetus are not, in reality, being adequately protected. In view of this, it has therefore been argued by Foster that the 1967 Act is not being used in the way that Parliament intended and that abortion are instead being used as another form of contraception.9 This demonstrates how abortion is easily accessible to women, which limits the protection that is currently being provided to the foetus. It is likely that doctors will only refuse to conduct an abortion if the womans pregnancy has gone past the 24 week threshold or if the circumstances are exceptional.This signifies how the rights of unborn children are not being preserved, yet it is debatable whether further protect ions ought to be in place. The right to life is an extremely sensitive subject since it basically provides a right to every human being not be killed.10 However, much complexity exists when considering the right to life in the context of unborn children. It is difficult to determine whether the mothers rights should prevail over the rights of the unborn child or vice versa. However, it has been said that the right to life is a human right that is inviolable and must be protected at all costs.11 If this statement was to be taken strictly, every abortion would be considered a violation of ones human rights and would not be permitted. However, in order to ensure that the rights of the mother are also being protected it is necessary that abortions are permitted in certain circumstances. This would ensure that a balance is attained between the two competing interests by allowing abortions to take place only if it is deemed necessary. Consequently, abortions should not be used carelessly as another form of contraception and this would means that the rights of the mother are being given greater consideration than the rights of the foetus. Abortions should therefore not be as accessible as they currently are and should only be permitted in modified situations. It is unclear what extent the interests of the foetus are actually being considered and it seems as though the right to life is being violated by the abortion process and so further protections may need to be provided to the foetus so that the rights of unborn children are given the same considerations as the mother.At present, it appears as though the rights of the mother prevail over the rights of the foetus, despite the restrictions that are in place. In order to ensure that the foetus right to life is being protected, it is necessary to impose further restrictions upon the mothers ability to have an abortion. At present, a mother is capable of aborting a foetus for various reasons including the fact tha t the child will suffer from a disability. Many people do not agree that this should be a reason to end the life of a foetus, though it is legal in the UK for a woman to abort a baby on grounds of disability up to birth. As a result of this many parents opt for an abortion if pre-natal screening reveals that their baby is suffering from a disability. Moreover, it has also been suggested that the parents are even put under pressure to do so.12 The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children strongly disagrees with this approach and believes that a person with a disability has the right to life along with every other member of society aborting a baby because he or she has, or even might have, a disability, is the ultimate form of discrimination.13 It cannot be said that the foetus right to life is being upheld as a result of this since they can be terminated at any point if they are found to have a disability. Not only does this undermined their right to life but it also discrimina tes against them on the grounds of their disability. As such, the provisions under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 are too not being complied with. In Vo v France,14 however, it was made clear that Article 2 of the Convention is silent as to the temporal limitations of the right to life, and in particular does not define everyone whose life is protected by the Convention.Effectively, it is clear that because Article 2 does not provide a definition as to who shall be protected, it is likely that the rights of the foetus will continue to be restricted. Jackson does not believe that the moral status of the foetus should be sufficiently wide enough to make abortion unlawful,15 however, and it seems as though the European Court of Justice is also reluctant as identified in Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v Ireland.16 Furthermore, in the case of X v United Kingdom17 the ECJ also stated that the right to life would be subject to an implied limitation in order to respect the mothers life even if this was at the expense of the foetus right to life under Article 2. Furthermore, it was also expressed in Paton v United Kingdom18 that the life of the foetus is intimately connected with, and cannot be regarded in isolation from, the life of the pregnant woman. This limited the rights of the foetus even further as it was demonstrated that the right to life under Article 2 was not available even though the abortion was not considered necessary to protect the life of the mother. This was also identified in H v Norway,19 which illustrates that even if an abortion occurred as a result of the mothers choice and there lacked any specific reason for terminating the pregnancy, Article 2 will still not be capable of providing protection to a foetus if this is at the expense of the mothers rights. This seems to indicate that unborn children are not actually provided with any rights despite the fact that Article 2 initially seemed to protect such interests. The termination of a pregnancy will continue to be a morally and ethically complex issue, particularly if the reason for aborting relates to a foetal abnormality.20 It has been pointed out that a clear legal framework is needed because of the complexities that exist in this area, though it was noted that this continues to prove extremely difficult to create.21The Rights of the MotherWhilst it is believed by many that the rights of the foetus should be given due consideration, it is equally argued that the rights of women should be considered foremost when deciding whether an abortion is lawful or not. This was shown in Roe v Wade22 where it was made clear by the Court that a person has a right to abortion unless the foetus has become viable. This means that the foetus does not become a human being until it is capable of living outside the mothers womb without any artificial aid.23 Although this decision was made by a Court in the US, it sparked a significant amount of debate. It was argued on the one hand that a foetus becomes a child whilst it is still in the womb and that the decision whether or not to allow abortion to take effect should not be based upon whether a foetus has the capacity to enjoy life as a person.24 It has been said that the decision in this case effectively allows an abortion on demand to take place.25 On the other hand, however, it has been expressed by Loveland that the judgment neither produced abortion on demand nor allowed states to prevent late-stage terminations.26 The decision in Planned Parenthood v Casey27 imposed further limitations on the rights of the mother when it was found that the viability period would be reduced from 24 weeks to 22 weeks. It is equivocal whether this was sufficient in ensuring that the right to life of the foetus under Article 2 was being provided with greater protection since the rights of the mother will continue to prevail in the majority of situations.It could be said that it is necessary for the mothers rights to be ascertained over the rights of the unborn child because women should be regarded as individuals as opposed to being merely containers for the foetus. In accordance with this, greater consideration should be given to the rights of the mother, though some protections should also be available for the unborn.28 Arguably, it is important that both the rights of the mother and the unborn child shall be considered, though much more weight ought to be given to the mothers interests as she is already considered a viable person. It has been contended by Herring that women who want an abortion should not be required to continue with the pregnancy.29 Therefore, although Article 2 expressly states that the right to life is to apply to everyone, the extent to which this applies to the foetus is arguable in view of the confliction that exists between the rights of the mother and the rights of the foetus. In A-Gs Reference (No 3 of 119)30 it was noted that a foetus is not regarded as a person an d will therefore not be directly protected by Article 2 of the Convention. It was further added that the only right to life in which a foetus has is implicitly limited by the mothers rights and interests. This suggests that a foetus will only be provided with the right to life indirectly from the mothers right under Article 2. It is unclear whether this completely undermines a foetus right to life, though it seems likely given that that Article 2 will not be violated if a pregnancy is terminated. The Courts have expressed great reluctance to elucidate on this matter, by assessing whether Article 2 will provide rights to the foetus or not, because of the existing moral and ethical considerations.As a result, great complexity continues to exist within this area of the law and unless Article 2 is more clearly defined, complexity will continue to ensue. Yet, because of the moral issues that are prevalent throughout, it seems as though a single approach would not be workable. Therefore , the decision as to whether an abortion should be permitted or not will continue to be decided on a case by case basis. As such, it will depend primarily upon the circumstances of each case. This allows a certain degree of flexibility to exist which is necessary given that each case will differ from the next. However, it is likely that the rights of the mother will continue to be favoured over the rights of the unborn child. Nevertheless, because of the politics that surround abortion, the European Court of Human Rights has been said to be wary of making a general rule concerning the legal status of the foetus, preferring to leave this question to the margin of appreciation.31 It cannot be said that this is acceptable given the ambiguity that arises within this area. But because there is no right or wrong answer as to whether the rights of the mother should prevail over the rights of the foetus the legal status of the foetus could not be defined by the Courts without attracting opp osition. It could be said that the UK has made some attempt to identify the rights of the foetus despite the fact that no right to life exists, yet the extent to which these interests are being protected will be likely to remain debated. When the case of Vo was brought before the ECHR they appeared to focus more on the question as to when life begins as well the nature and characteristics of the foetus, as opposed to focusing on the relationship between the mother and her potential child and the others right to reproductive freedom and autonomy.32Therefore, the approach taken by the ECHR should have been based upon the recognition of foetal interests as well as the loss of a mothers relationship. Whilst this would not have addressed all of the difficulties that arise in this area, it would have provided some recognition as to the interests of the foetus. Much more needs to be done if foetal interests are to be provided with greater protected, whilst at the same time maintaining th e rights of the mother. The rights of the mother appear to be protected in favour of the rights of the foetus, yet it has been said that this ensure the human dignity of the mother is being preserved.33 This is because if a mother was not provided with the choice to terminate a pregnancy, it is likely that their human dignity would be violated. Whilst this this may be at the expense of the rights enshrined in Article 2, it is deemed necessary in protecting the mothers interests.Balancing the RightsIt is doubtful that the rights of the foetus and the rights of the mother are being balanced since the rights of the foetus continue to be undermined. Whilst there are some protections in place to preserve the interests of the foetus, these do not appear sufficient and so it seems as though tighter restrictions ought to be implemented to ensure that abortion is not easily accessible. This would allow for a more acceptable balance to be attained because at present it seems to be largely one -sided. If abortion was only permitted in extreme circumstances, it would not be capable of being used as another form of contraception and the interests of the foetus would be better recognised. On the contrary, it is argued that further limitations would limit the mothers freedom to choose and their own rights would be undermined if Article 2 was to provide express rights to unborn children. Therefore, whilst abortion should still be permitted, limitations should be imposed so that the rights of the foetus are given better protection. It is unclear whether judge should be left to make a decision on whether an abortion is lawful or not since opinions will differ significantly on this subject. Thus, it cannot be said that judges should be left to decide upon moral issues. Whilst one judge may agree with abortion, another judge may not as individuals have different perceptions on what is and what is not morally right. This is why the courts have been quite reluctant to use a single approach when deciding upon the interests of a foetus and it seems that the matter is better left undefined.This was identified by Sandel when it was argued that there are differences of opinions as to whether abortion is morally reprehensible and therefore worthy of prohibition, whilst many avoid passing judgment on the morality of these practices.34 The ECHR appears to have adopted the latter approach, by failing to provide a decision on the legal status of foetus. This lack of definition may actually be in the interests of the foetus since rights are capable of being provided that may not have been had a definition been in place. The determination as to whether abortion should be a mothers choice or not will be capable of being assessed differently in all cases. This is necessary given the diverging opinions that exist since it will continue to be argued by many that Article 2 should provide a right to anyone including unborn children, whilst others will continue to be of the v iew that the decision should be left with the freedom of choice as protected under Article 13 of the Convention. The current practice that is being adopted in striking a balance between the two competing interests does appear to be the most plausible approach to take since each case will be determined by its facts. This could, however, lead to judicial activism occurring, which appears to have happened in the Roe case above which was described by Thielen as an incredible reach of judicial activism.35 Judicial activism occurs when a ruling is said to be based upon political or personal considerations as opposed to being based upon existing law.36 Therefore, if when Courts are provided with the ability to decide upon matters concerning abortion, judicial activism is likely to emerge which undermines social policy and, in some instances, human rights. Still, as put forward by Ewing and Gearty English judges have shown a powerful engagement with the rights of the unborn in the past,37 yet whether violations of ones human rights are arising out of this is likely and it seems quite difficult for a balance to be achieved between the rights of the unborn with the rights of the mother.Conclusion This area is extremely controversial and because of this it is difficult for legislators as well as the judiciary to make a decision as to whether a foetus does have rights. Many people are of the view that every woman should have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, yet not all agree with this. Instead, it is argued that women are capable of using abortion as a form of contraception because of how easily accessible it is. Whilst there are some restraints in place to prevent this from happening, such as the requirement to obtain permission from two doctors, it cannot be said that such measures are effective. This is because it is highly unlikely that an abortion would be refused unless the stages of pregnancy have gone past the 24 week threshold. Furthermore , because women are permitted to have an abortion past this stage if the unborn child is suffering from a disability, the rights of the foetus are being undermined even further. It is therefore questionable whether the current law is effective in preserving the interests of the foetus since the law has not made it difficult for abortions to be performed. Therefore, it could be said that further restrictions are needed so as to balance the rights of the mother with the rights of the unborn child. Conversely, because there is a limit on the number of weeks a person can abort a foetus, it could be said that their interests are being adequately protected to a certain degree. Whether this is sufficient, however, is likely to remain a contestable subject for many years to come as there will continue to be differing opinions as to whether abortion should be so easily available. In effect, there are both strengths and weaknesses for right to abortion, yet it is questionable whether the stre ngths do in fact outweigh the weaknesses.BIBLIOGRAPHYCases A-Gs Reference (No 3 of 119) 1998 AC 245H v Norway (1992) 73 D R 155 Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v Ireland (1992) 14 EHRR 244 Paton v United Kingdom (1980) 3 EHRR 408Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) 404 U.S. 833Roe v Wade (1973) 410 U.S. 113 Vo v France Judgement of 8 July 2004 40 EHRR 12 X v United Kingdom (1980) 19 D R 244 Legislation Abortion Act 1967Disability Discrimination Act 1995European Convention of Human Rights 1951Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990Human Rights Act 1998Textbooks Herring, J. Law Express Medical Law (Revision Guide), Longman, 2nd Edition, (2009).Herring, J. Medical Law and Ethics, OUP Oxford, 3rd Edition, (2010).Hope, T., Savulescu, J. and Hendrick, J. Medical Ethics and Law The Core Curriculum, Churchill Livingstone, 2nd Edition, (2008).Kaczor, C., The Ethics of Abortion Womens Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice, (Routledge London, 2013).Kennedy, I., Grubb, A., Laing, J . and McHale, J. Principles of Medical Law, OUP Oxford, 3rd Edition, (2010).Jackson, E. Medical Law Text, Cases and Materials (Text, Cases and Materials), OUP Oxford, 2nd Edition, (2009).Mason, K. and Laurie, G. Mason and McCall Smiths Law and Medical Ethics, OUP Oxford, 8th Edition, (2010). Articles Abortion Rights Campaign, Why women need a modern abortion, law and better services, Available Online at http//www.abortionrights.org.uk/content/view/180/121/BBC, Womens Rights Arguments in Favour of Abortion, Ethics Guide, (1992), Available Online at http//www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/mother/for_1.shtmlK.D and Gearty. CA, Terminating Abortion RightsNew Law Journal, 142 NLJ 1969, Issue 6579, (04 December, 1992).C, Forty Years On, New Law Journal, 157 NLJ 1517, Issue 7295, (02 November, 2007).Frankenburg, G., Human Rights and the Belief in a Just World International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 12, Issue 1.Holetzky, S. What is Judicial Activism(04 February, 2010), Available Onl ine at http//www.wisegeek.com/what-is-judicial-activism.htmHuman Rights, Right to Life Not just an abortion issue, Available Online at http//www.abouthumanrights.co.uk/right-life-not-just-abortion-issue.htmlI, A Vacancy in the Supreme Court, New Law Journal, 144 NLJ 537, Issue 6644, (22 April, 1994).McCrudden, C. Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights, European Journal of International Law, EJIL 2008 19 (655), Issue 4, (01 September, 2008).ODonovan, K. Commentary, Medical Law Review, Med Law Rev 2006 14 (115), (01 March, 2006).Sandel, M. J. Symposium Law, Community, and Moral Reasoning Moral Argument and Liberal Toleration Abortion and Homosexuality, California Law Review, 77 Calif. L. Rev. 521, (May, 1989).The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, SPUC, Abortion and disability or eugenic abortion, Available Online at http//www.spuc.org.uk/students/abortion/disabilityThielen, D. Overturn Roe v Wade, Liberal and Loving It, (2005), Available Online at http/ /www.davidthielen.info/politics/2005/08/overturn_roe_vs.htmlWicks, E., Wyldes, M. and Kilby, M. Late Termination of Pregnancy for Foetal Abnormality Medical and Legal Perspectives, Medical Law Review, Med Law Rev 2004.12 (285), (01 September, 2004).